4.5 Review

An Application of Artificial Intelligence to Diagnostic Imaging of Spine Disease: Estimating Spinal Alignment From Moire Images

期刊

NEUROSPINE
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 697-702

出版社

KOREAN SPINAL NEUROSURGERY SOC
DOI: 10.14245/ns.1938426.213

关键词

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Moire; Artificial intelligence; Estimation; Cobb angle; Vertebral rotation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool supporting the diagnosis and treatment of spinal diseases is eagerly anticipated. In the field of diagnostic imaging, the possible application of AI includes diagnostic support for diseases requiring highly specialized expertise, such as trauma in children, scoliosis, symptomatic diseases, and spinal cord tumors. Moire topography, which describes the 3-dimensional surface of the trunk with band patterns, has been used to screen students for scoliosis, but the interpretation of the band patterns can be ambiguous. Thus, we created a scoliosis screening system that estimates spinal alignment, the Cobb angle, and vertebral rotation from moire images. In our system, a convolutional neural network (CNN) estimates the positions of 12 thoracic and 5 lumbar vertebrae, 17 spinous processes, and the vertebral rotation angle of each vertebra. We used this information to estimate the Cobb angle. The mean absolute error (MAE) of the estimated vertebral positions was 3.6 pixels (similar to 5.4 mm) per person. T1 and L5 had smaller MAEs than the other levels. The MAE per person between the Cobb angle measured by doctors and the estimated Cobb angle was 3.42 degrees. The MAE was 4.38 degrees in normal spines, 3.13 degrees in spines with a slight deformity, and 2.74 degrees in spines with a mild to severe deformity. The MAE of the angle of vertebral rotation was 2.9 degrees +/- 1.4 degrees, and was smaller when the deformity was milder. The proposed method of estimating the Cobb angle and AVR from moire images using a CNN is expected to enhance the accuracy of scoliosis screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据